Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WELLS, J. K. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WELLS, J. K. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 1985, Vol. 57, No. 8 732-735
© 1985 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

research-article

COMPARISION OF ICI 35868, ETOMIDATE AND METHOHEXITONE FOR DAY-CASE ANAESTHESIA

J. K. G. WELLS, M.B., B.S., D.A., F.F.A.R.CS

Department of Anaesthetics, fearing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road London W6 8RF.
Present address: Basingstoke District Hospital, General Division Aldermaston Road, Basingstoke, Hants RG24 9NA.

The anaesthetic properties and side-effects of propofol 1.5 mg kg -1etomidate 0.2 mg kg -1and methohexitone 1.5 mg kg-1were compared in 71 healthy female patients undergoing short gynaecological procedures. Propofol proved to be a safe and effective agent for induction and maintenance of anaesthesia and was associated with a lower incidence of side-effects than either etomidate or methohexitone.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 SEMIN CARDIOTHORAC VASC ANESTHHome page
M. N. Avramov and P. F. White
Etomidate: Its Pharmacologic and Physiologic Effects
Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, July 1, 1997; 1(2): 132 - 141.
[PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.